.22 vs .32

C

Cosmodragoon

New member
I just enjoyed reading a thread about .22 vs .22 magnum in a variety of uses. It got me thinking though... With the exception of very small game, why even bother with .22 in a handgun?

The .22s use a smaller bullet in a rimfire cartridge while the .32s use a larger bullet in a centerfire cartridge. Yet, both are relatively small and have relatively light recoil. Both allow for more shots than heavier calibers. You can carry more .22 LRs in your clip or cylinder. However, the .22 magnum is typically the same capacity as .32s in revolver.

When it comes to power, .22 LR is clearly bottom-barrel and many shooters eschew it for self-defense. Its magnum cousin has enthusiastic supporters but on a pistol platform, does any .22 really compete with the modern .32 family?

I specify "modern" because there are much older rounds like the .32 S&W, short and long. I don't expect many people to hunt these down and carry them defensively. I don't think a mass-market revolver has been made exclusively for these older rounds in decades. However, you can always load them into revolvers chambered for the respectable .32 H&R Magnum or the impressive .327 Federal Magnum. That means the modern .32 revolvers have a built-in low-power option if you really need it for some reason. I sometimes use them with new shooters to help tin cans get down from on top of the fence.

While the .22s do shine with ridiculous capacity in some semi-automatics, reports of malfunction are more common than I'd like. The real benefit seems to be that .22 is more common and more platforms for it exist. That is both the result and sustaining force for the .22. If it is otherwise inferior for most of the purposes for which people carry pistols, then that paradigm should be challenged. If it is challenged effectively, we may someday see a revolution in .32. Right now, I do my part by carrying it almost every day.
 
the 22s dont have much recoil. especially in small packages. round counts are slightly better. however you have the same chance of rimlock with both cartridges.

32 has more cross section, that means more tissue disuption. however they only seem to get quality expansion and penetration if you spend 30-40 dollars on a box of expanding ammo.
 
I carry a .22 Mag five shot revolver as a BUG for my everyday carry. It rides so well in a front pocket (have a leather pocket holster for it), it would be a shame to leave home without it. :cool:

edc-3.jpg
 
cosmodragoon: said:
...why even bother with .22 in a handgun?
Click to expand...

For many, their physical (dis)inability/ailments/sensitivity to recoil make it THE only option even against the fairly gentle .32.

I'd rather see someone armed with a .22, than sit helplessly as they are victimized.
 
I have a BERETTA 21 A and a SEECAMP 32. One or the other is always with me . I have MP 40c ,and RUGER SP101 for carry.
 
For many, their physical (dis)inability/ailments/sensitivity to recoil make it THE only option even against the fairly gentle .32.

I'd rather see someone armed with a .22, than sit helplessly as they are victimized.
Click to expand...
^this +100
 
I think the advantages of 22s are based on the cost and availability of ammunition (in normal times). Also, I can buy 22LR and use it in my 22 semi-auto pistol, my 22 revolver, my 22 semi-auto rifle and my 22 lever rifle. I can use 22 mag. in my revolver and my bolt action rifle.
 
Have been told the shell casing found most often at crime scenes is the 22 cal. Ergo, the most people killedby handguns, have been killed by .22 cal bullets? There are MANY examples. However, there have been MANY spectacular failures too.

The .32 ACP has had an excellent record of stopping folks and should you carry, for example, a PPK you are a well armed individual. Great ankle BUG. But here in the USA the .380 is more highly regarded (its bigger don'tcha know) when the only advantage it has over the lowly .32 (and .22) is it does not suffer rimlock, (which is, btw, kinda rare).

PS: I recently picked up a S&W M&P 22, very accurate fixed barrel, hammer fired mid-size handgun with 13 rounds on board... for a .22 cal it is a capable CCW.
 
The .22 rimfire has been around and fairly popular since its invention in the late 1850s, but I wonder if it is going to last, considering this onslaught by the superior .32 centerfires.
 
I think the bigger question, generally is "why NOT a 22lr?"

If you mean for SD, I can see perhaps not wanting one, but a 22lr in general? They are great for plinking, economy practice, low recoil practice, training others, etc. I have many for these reasons and more.
 
I have a few guns and shoot them all but what I shoot more than all the others combined is the 22. If I went up to the 32 and dropped the 22 I just tripled the cost of my shooting.

One guess why some of us won't stop shooting the versatile 22. I can put more 22 caliber rimfire cartridges in a magazine than you can put 32 caliber centerfire cartridges in your 'clip' and I can do it for less cost. Guess who gets to shoot more and keep his shooting skill level up.
 
Hmm...

Have been told the shell casing found most often at crime scenes is the 22 cal. Ergo, the most people killedby handguns, have been killed by .22 cal bullets? There are MANY examples. However, there have been MANY spectacular failures too.
Click to expand...

Not to hijack thread, but I have always been told the 380 casing is the most frequent found at crime scenes.
 
.22 LR is clearly bottom-barrel and many shooters eschew it for self-defense. Its magnum cousin has enthusiastic supporters but on a pistol platform, does any .22 really compete with the modern .32 family?... I specify "modern" because there are much older rounds like the .32 S&W, short and long.
Click to expand...
IMHO for many decades, the main problem with .22WMR for defensive revolver use was the available ammo. All of the major cartridge makers seemed to assume that the round was only used for target shooting or plinking, or for hunting small game (<30lbs), with a rifle. Consequently, only two basic types of bullets were offered: (a) FMJ, for punching paper and ventilating soda cans, or hunting game for its meat or pelt; or (b) frangible JHP that was designed to fragment violently for killing small varmints (or plastic water bottles!) as humanely as possible.

Neither type of bullet is ideal for defense against two-legged varmints; the FMJ pokes too small of a hole, and the frangible JHP only penetrates a few inches- ample for a furry critter that's only 4"-6" across, but not so good for a BG. :( Also, most of the loads used slow-burning powder to maximize rifle velocity, causing deafening and blinding muzzle blast out of a short barrel, not to mention nasty powder fouling that caused ejection and reloading problems.

For this reason, my default answer in "Low Recoil Revolver - .22 Magnum vs. .32 Long" threads used to be .32 Long. It may move too slow for expanding bullets to work, but it punches a bigger hole than .22WMR FMJ, it penetrates much better than .22WMR frangible JHP, and its recoil and muzzle blast are very mild. Plus- you can load it with sharper-edged LHBWC or LSWC bullets, and it shoots clean.

All this changed with the recent introduction of .22WMR loads that are designed for handgun use- the 40gr Speer Gold Dot and 45gr Hornady FTX. I now believe that .22WMR equals or exceeds .32 Long in effectiveness if these loads are used- particularly considering that the available revolvers hold 7-8 shots vs. 6, an important consideration when one may have to unload the entire gun in a SD scenario.
 
Cosmodragoon and others seem to be thinking only in terms of hunting or self-defense. Has anyone heard of plain old "plinking" or shooting at paper targets? .22 LR is still a low(er) cost ammo, allowing more shooting. Of course, more shooting is not applicable to self-defense, even if practice is factored in, as I doubt many who think in those terms ever fire more than a box or two of ammo. But if you just like to shoot and inanimate things, .22LR allows doing a lot of that, and incidentally become a better shot for a time when shooting skill may be needed against more than an old beer can.

Jim
 
American Rifleman this month has an analysis of 22 Mag for self-defense. Their conclusion based on gelatin was that there are better solutions but if that's what you go or can shoot - it works.

James is correct - I shoot a Buckmark at steel matches once in awhile. Very easy and relaxing.
 
James K and others raise a solid point. I absolutely framed the debate in terms of concealed carry, defense, and small game hunting. When it comes to plinking--which probably makes up a lot of our actual shooting--considerations can change radically. As I said above, that's where I actually use the .32 S&Ws. An important reason I framed the debate this way is that the classes of carry, defense, and hunting are far more restrictive than that of plinking. You can plink with anything so long as you like it and don't mind paying for it.

That being said, the cost and availability issues have been raised. Those concerns were certainly valid a year ago. Right now, amidst a serious supply/demand crunch that shows little sign of improvement, do they still hold? I mean, .22 LR is still affordable at major retailers but that only matters when they have it in stock.

I am frequently on the road for work and I always stop by various shops along the way. Nearly all of them have been out of .22 LR in recent months. When I do see it, the shops are often rationing to preserve stock so you might only get a box or two. I've also seen smaller shops and private citizens selling .22s at an incredible mark-up. Yet, next to the empty shelf-space for .22 LR, I keep seeing oodles of .32 acp. The .32 H&R and .327 Federal magnums are a bit more rare but I've been much more likely to see a few boxes of those than anything in .22 lately.
 
I like the .32s but there is a good case for .22lr in a kit type gun. Cost, availability and weight are important considerations on an extended trip.
 
There is simply no replacement for a .22lr when it comes to cheap range fun and it does reasonably well on small game, even from a handgun.

The taste of some is to not reload or to not reload all the time. I'm a handloader but even as such if I can buy ammo, even for a small increase in price over handloading, I will for a given job. I can reload my .32H&R for cheaper than .22M ammo. Yet, once again for a given job, I would buy and shoot .22M for extra coin to save me time at the bench. That is if the .22M is up to the task.

That get's us to the real question...... Is the .22M up to the task? I have .22lrs and .32H&R's. There is no job that a .22M can do that I can't skimp by with the .22lr and completely outclass with the .32H&R. The .32 is better on small game, light years ahead on medium game and SD. Won't catch me crying if manufactures stopped wasting time (production and research) on the .22M. They've better things to do then to spend time polishing a ****. Like making .22lr ammo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top